St. Louis Poster Advertising Co. v. City of St. Louis

Decision Date22 May 1917
Docket NumberNo. 18441.,18441.
PartiesST. LOUIS POSTER ADVERTISING CO. v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS et al.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Geo. C. Hitchcock, Judge.

Proceeding by the St. Louis Poster Advertising Company against the City of St. Louis and others to enjoin the enforcement of ordinances regulating the construction and maintenance of billboards. From the judgment sustaining a demurrer to the petition and dismissing the bill, the plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

The petition was filed March 21, 1914. It asked for injunction to restrain the city of St. Louis and its codefendants, Henry W. Kiel, mayor, James N. McKelvey, commissioner of public buildings, and William Young, chief of police of said city, from enforcing certain ordinances with relation to the construction and maintenance of billboards. The petition states, in substance, that the plaintiff was incorporated under the laws of the state of Missouri on February 1, 1894, and has ever since been engaged as such corporation in the business of bill posting and advertising in the city of St. Louis, in the prosecution of which business it has procured at great expense leases of lots on which to erect such billboards for terms running from three to five years, has erected billboards thereon at an expense approximating $100,000, and has entered into many contracts for the display of advertising matter on said boards for periods extending from six months to three years, and its income is derived solely from the payments made by customers for such services; that in the construction and maintenance of such billboards it has always complied with the laws of the state and valid ordinances of the city, constructing them in a substantial, permanent, safe, workmanlike, and sanitary manner, so that they will stand a wind pressure of 30 pounds to the square foot, corresponding to a wind velocity of 83 miles per hour, which is greater than the highest velocity of record in said city, so that their resistance is equal to the standard required for the tallest office buildings; that they are fireproof, and that it has never lost a billboard by fire, nor has one of them been blown down by the wind; that no fire or tornado insurance is carried thereon; that they are in numerous instances equipped with electric wires and lighted by electricity, and are kept in a permanent, safe, substantial, workmanlike, and sanitary condition, and it has never been charged by officials of the city that any of them are a nuisance or a menace or detriment to the public welfare, morals, or safety of the city or any of its inhabitants; that the service rendered by plaintiff has become a commercial necessity to many doing lawful business in said city; and that none of them are situated upon public property. The plaintiff further states that the business of manufacturing posters for display on these boards has reached enormous proportions in this and foreign countries, employing vast capital, and large numbers of persons depend upon it for support; that the size of these posters have been standardized, so that they require for their display a surface not less than 10½ feet in height and from 9 to 70 feet in length; and that the equipment for the manufacture of commercial and theatrical posters is adapted to the production of such standard size, and cannot be changed without great initial expense and loss, so that, if plaintiff cannot display these standard sizes, the larger portion of the income from its business will be destroyed.

The petition then states: That on April 7, 1897, the city passed an ordinance providing that no billboard should be erected in the city without a permit from the building commissioner upon a plan to be approved by him for which a fee of $1 for each 25 feet or fraction thereof must be paid, and that within the fire limits no board more than 14 feet high should be erected, and that all billboards should have at least 2 feet of clear space from the lower edge of the board to the ground. That on April 7, 1905, another ordinance, No. 22022, was passed purporting to revise the building code of the city, by which the ordinance of 1897 was repealed. It provided that the construction, erection, repairing, and altering or removing of buildings should thereafter be in conformity with its provisions, and that nothing therein should be considered to prevent the completion of any building operations for which permits were in force at the time of its approval, in accordance with the terms of the ordinance in force at the time of the issue of such permit. The fee for such permit for the erection or altering of buildings was fixed at $1 if the estimated cost of such work should be less than $1,000, and the further sum of 50 cents for each additional $1,000. For permits for the removal of buildings the fee was fixed at $1 for buildings covering an area of 2,500 square feet or less, and 50 cents for each additional 2,500 feet or fraction thereof. Section 81 of this ordinance provides that the fee to be charged for a permit to erect signs upon buildings shall be at the rate of $1 for every 25 square feet of the area of such signs, and the fee for a permit to erect billboards should be at the rate of $1 for every five lineal feet thereof, and fee for a permit to erect or install any heating or power apparatus should be $1. Section 177 provides that no billboard of 25 square feet or more shall be erected, altered, replaced, or reconstructed without a permit; and that the manner of construction, location, and dimensions thereof shall be subject to the approval of the building commissioner; and that no billboard shall extend more than 14 feet high above the ground; and that all the billboards shall have an open space of 4 feet between the lower edge and the ground which shall not be closed in any manner; and that no billboards shall approach nearer than 6 feet to any building nor to the side of any lot, or shall be nearer than 2 feet to any other billboard, or shall exceed 500 square feet in area, nor approach the street line of any street, alley, or right of way on which any lot fronts or abuts nearer than 15 feet; and that, where the building line within 50 feet of the billboard is more than 15 feet from the street or boundary line, the billboard must be kept within the building line; and that, where buildings are afterward built near billboards, the latter shall be moved or cut to have a space of 6 feet between the building and the billboard; that "any billboard which now is or hereafter becomes unsafe, and any which may hereafter be erected or altered contrary to this section, shall be removed by the owner of the board or of the property on which it stands" upon notice specified, within three days after service of such notice shall be made by delivery to the owner, or posting upon the offending structure, or mailing to the owner's personal or business address either within or without the city. The petition states the objections to the validity of the ordinance as follows:

"(1) The city of St. Louis has no authority or power in law to make the regulations contained in said ordinances, and has no power or authority to deprive the owners and lessees of private property of the unrestricted, free, and reasonable use thereof, as by the said ordinances is attempted to be done.

"(2) The provisions of said ordinances are unreasonable, unjust, and oppressive, and go far beyond any regulations necessary for the protection of the lives, morals, and property of the inhabitants of the city of St. Louis.

"(3) Said ordinances are not uniform in their operation upon all classes to which they apply, but discriminate against structures erected for advertising purposes, and discriminate against them merely because they are erected for advertising purposes.

"(4) Said ordinances undertake to force the same limitations and regulations upon advertising structures or billboards in the open and unsettled part of the city as in the downtown and thickly settled sections.

"(5) Said ordinances, as interpreted and threatened to be enforced by the commissioner of public buildings, prohibit plaintiff from making reasonable and necessary repairs on the signs and billboards heretofore by it erected, and thus will prevent it from relieving itself from great loss and from prospective liability for damages which might arise by reason of injuries caused by boards that become unsafe.

"(6) Said ordinances, if and as threatened to be enforced, would deprive the owners and lessees of private property within the limits of the city of St. Louis, and especially this plaintiff, of the lawful and reasonable use of that part of said property which lies within 15 feet of any public street or within 6 feet of any building, without any necessity therefor and without any compensation whatever.

"(7) That said ordinances arbitrarily, oppressively, and unreasonably limit the height and size of billboards, without regard to the location or the surrounding conditions.

"(8) Said ordinances attempt to prescribe an unjust unreasonable and oppressive fee to be paid for permits to erect signs and billboards within the city of St. Louis, without any reason therefor, and said fees are far in excess of and more than 500 times greater than the fees charged for similar permits for any other structures or buildings, involving as much and greater service by the officers of the city.

"(9) Said ordinances attempt to prescribe the kind of material out of which signs of certain dimensions shall be constructed, without regard to the requirements of the location and surroundings of said signs.

"(10) Said ordinances are designed to and do discriminate against the lawful business in which plaintiff is engaged, and were designed to and ultimately will deprive plaintiff, and all others engaged in the same business, of their present plants, and will drive them entirely...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Gen. Outdoor Advertising Co. v. Dep't of Pub. Works
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • January 10, 1935
    ...were accepted as true. Those allegations are not printed in 249 U. S. 269, 39 S. Ct. 274, 63 L. Ed. 599, but are set forth at length in 195 S. W. 717, where is reported the decision of the Supreme Court of Missouri, which was brought to the United States Supreme Court on writ of error. Both......
  • Stewart v. City of Springfield, 37234.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • September 8, 1942
    ...286 Mo. l.c. 117, 226 S.W. 853; Thompson v. Farmers Exchange Bank, 62 S.W. (2d) 803, 333 Mo. 437; St. Louis Poster Adv. Co. v. St. Louis, 195 S.W. 717. (b) Upon demurrer the petition must, under our code, be liberally construed in arriving at its meaning. The court takes as true facts well ......
  • General Outdoor Advertising Co., Inc. v. Department of Public Works
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • January 10, 1935
    ......L. Brown, all of Boston, and W. E. Beehan, of. New York City, for plaintiffs. . .           J. S. Eastham, Sp. Asst. ... groups, viz., poster boards, painted bulletins or signs, wall. boards, painted walls, ...273, 102 N.E. 321, as to. garages, and in Fischer v. St. Louis, 194 U.S. 361,. 24 S.Ct. 673, 48 L.Ed. 1018, as to stables for cows. ......
  • City of Clayton v. Nemours
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • July 3, 1944
    ...... 1944. . .          Appeal. from Circuit Court of St. Louis County; Hon. John A. Witthaus, Judge. . .          . ...968, 993(V, VIII),. 30 S.W. 2d 447, 459[10, 14]; St. Louis Poster Adv. Co. v. St. Louis, 249 U.S. 269, 274, 39 S.Ct. 274, 63 L.Ed. 599; ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT